LambdaMOO is a virtual reality game or a multi-user dimension, i.e. MUD. This means that the game is a database especially designed to give users the vivid impression of moving through a physical space that in reality exists only as a descriptive data filed away on a hard drive.
Q.1 Are you a member of a MUD community? If yes, do you find yourself reflecting the events in virtual reality with real life?
“A virtual "rape", also known as "MOOrape", is defined within LambdaMOO as a sexually related act of a violent, acutely debasing, or profoundly humiliating nature against a character who has not explicitly consented to the interaction. Any act which explicitly references the non-consensual, involuntary exposure, manipulation, or touching of sexual organs of or by a character is considered an act of this nature.” [1]
On a Monday night, tens of regular Lambda users gather in the Lambda chateau’s cosy living room to chat and meet friends just like almost every other night. However, that night something strange happens. A hideous clown starts abusing two of his fellow players by using a voodoo doll, which gives him the power to use his victims sexually. That night, ‘Mr. Bungle’ raped ‘Starsinger’ and ‘legba’. To someone, who has never stepped into the world of virtual, these events might sound rather absurd. How could have someone possibly be raped in virtual reality, when no bodies were touched and no one got hurt? Julian Dibbell, or ‘Dr. Bombay’ the author of this article, and a Lambda player himself, states that every set of facts in virtual reality is shadowed by a second, complicated set: the “real life” facts. By this, he tries to explain that especially in the ‘Bungle affair’ real life and the virtual reality seem to integrate, as the rape violates the victim’s personal space and affects them beyond the game environment.
Q.2 Do you think that the rape in cyberspace is a crime against the mind? What are the implications of this to the freedom of speech?
The event sparked an outrage among the Lambda users. In fact, it provoked strong, emotional feelings, which according to Dibbell suggests that “the MUD experiences are neither exactly real or exactly make-believe, but profoundly, compellingly and emotionally meaningful.” Soon, a fierce debate filled the Lambard *social, where tens of players shared their thoughts on the issues of law, civility, ethics and crime inside their community. Indeed, for the first time, the players inside the cyberspace acted as a community, defining themselves politically as they were demanding a punishment for Mr. Bungle. Dibbell found that during the debate groups were formed taking different standpoints on the matter. Issues such as could Mr Bungle’s virtual existence be deleted or could he possibly be punished in real life for committing a sexual offence were raised and discussed extensively. However, Dibbel notes that even if the community had unified under this matter, the conversation seemed to go nowhere, as the decisive authority and the ultimate power, in this case the wizard, was missing.
Q.3 Why was the community formed so effectively during the ‘Bungle-Affair? Why could it not govern itself?
It is very interesting how the real life and the virtual reality moralities and conventions were juxtaposed in the debate that evolved around the Affair. Dibbell suggests that “when it comes to sex, perhaps the body in question is not the physical one at all, but its physic double, the body-like self expression we carry around in our heads.” This idea could also be demonstrated clearly in the *social’s discussion board; “where does the body end and the mind begin?” ‘Quastro’ asked. ‘HerkieCosmo’ replied: “in MOO, body IS the mind.”
Q.4 Do you think the fact that Dibbell was himself part of this community affects his writing and point of view? What does he mean by saying ‘…something truer and more elegant that could be found on LambdaMOO…’ ?
(This is what he says in the last paragraph. I thought it was mystic.)
cheers, Maija
[1] http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol2/issue1/lambda.html
Sunday, October 5, 2008
Thursday, October 2, 2008
Response to Harold
I think that the tactics used by Adbusters are effective in that they are spreading the message that ad campaigns are shallow and pointless, with their only agenda being to promote consumption of products. I agree that with increased popularity and sales, Adbusters has sold out to the corporate agenda and the processes of greed that plague humanity. Although they have 'sold out', it depends on what they do with the profits made by selling the shoes and stock. If Adbusters uses the increase in resources to continue their grassroots campaign, then they are being effective in spreading the message of anti- ad campaigning and could use the resources to further their message of anti-corporate greed. (Sorry for using a binary here) On the other hand, if Adbusters uses their increased revenue to further bad social realities such as the beauty industrial complex, they could be defined as part of the problem that advertising creates.
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
Presentation: "Pranking Rhetoric" by Christine Harold
I thought this article was really interesting – it made me snigger aloud in the library, which is never really the done thing, is it? If any of you didn't get round to reading it at all/properly, I urge that you go back and work your way through - it's worth it. Christine Harold provides us with a fairly comprehensive introduction to the ideas behind culture jamming and, more precisely, ‘pranking’. She details some of the major figureheads within this scene over the years, such as ®™ark, BBB and the INFKT Truth campaign, listing the notable achievements they have to their name. She also looks to the past for an overview of the movement, its origins and roots of influence that have led to its current inception. I thought this was a valuable inclusion on her part: it is important to acknowledge the influence of groups such as the Situationist International in the modern day work of these activists. I felt this article could have focused a little more on the politics behind the action - she touches on why they are carrying out these campaigns, but I thought more time could be spent on what the greater issues are. It was interesting to understand why they adopted the various techniques they did, as well as the methods they employ to manipulate te media and therfore retain a sense of power withint he situation. Whilst the media represents a lot of the issues they have a problem with, they recognise the need to work with them in order to spread the message. Perhaps this can be considered a clever reclaiming of an insitution they so vocally disagree with.
I had some thoughts that cropped up as I read the piece, but was concerned about floating off-topic on one of my infamous tangents (I figure you can get away with that a whole lot more in a verbal discussion). I’ll try to stick to the main crux of the issues, but if anyone has ideas that I haven’t mentioned, please throw them in because I thought this article had things to say on a lot of levels.
a) How did you feel about the INFKT campaign? Do you think it’s unusual for a youth antismoking campaign to succeed (I do) and if it did to a certain degree, as Harold suggests, what factors do you think contributed to this?
b) This is possibly where I digress, but it didn’t sit very well with me that they were consciously pushing a product and the correlative reduction in anti-advertising rhetoric on their website. Don’t get me wrong: I actually really liked the shoes and wanted a pair – I get how they do fit with Adbuster’s work, but similarly, their adverts worked and that didn’t quite sit well with me. Have they become their own enemy here? Talk of relocating the site of manufacture (heavens forbid I use the term ‘factory’) to China. They are selling significant levels of stock: is there a degree of compromise and ‘selling out’ from your radical, grassroots ethics that becomes associated with success?
c) Pranking is portrayed as a more ‘playful’ form of subversive action - how do you think it measures up against the traditional culture jamming? More/less effective?
On a final note, here’s a link you all might enjoy, based on the tute's responses when asked what your favourite website was.
Monday, September 29, 2008
Presentation: Poster, M. (2004) ‘Consumption and Digital Commodities in the Everyday’.
Poster, M. (2004) ‘Consumption and Digital Commodities in the Everyday’. Cultural Studies 18, 2/3, 409-423.
Hello bloggers! Below is my presentation for this week, any problems/misunderstandings just let me know? If not, happy blogging and I look forward to reading your comments xx
Poster begins by detailing the inescapability from perpetual advertising and the pressures to consume, within contemporary society. He is evidently not in favour of the omnipotent presence of consumption. According to Poster advertising (as the vehicle of consumption) infiltrates into our homes, our work environment, in fact every aspect of our lives. It can be identified that consumption blurs the boundaries between public and private spheres which is an indication of its strength and importance within present society.
Continuing with the theme of binaries, Poster discusses how there has been a division between the consumption/production binary which highlights a ‘unique type of human action’ created by consumption. Different people consume in varying ways and all consumption patterns are subject to change over time thus Poster argues that if one was to identify common features within consumption then it would be possible to label such a practice as a cultural construct with set patterns. This would then possibly refute the notion of individualism which is closely linked in with consumption.
There is discussion upon postmodern consumption patterns and according to Poster the onus is on ‘multiplicity’. Modern consumption was laden with fixed ideas whereas postmodern consumption allows for diversity and change. Poster argues that consumer culture no longer trickles down from the upper echelons of society but in fact climbs up from the lower classes. However a contradiction to this argument is the notion of celebrities setting trends and encouraging consumption. Wealthy celebrities continue to influence the lower classes in society who in turn often strive to imitate them; thus I am not entirely convinced that there is now a climbing up as opposed to a trickling down within consumer culture. An additional disparity between modern and postmodern consumption is that within the former products represented status whereas in the latter period products express one’s identity. Consumption is thus part of self-construction. For more details upon consumerism within postmodernity and liquidity in terms of identity see Zygmunt Bauman.
The final subheading within the article is titled ‘Digital Media and Consumption’. According to Poster digital media transforms both the cultural object and the subject position of the consumer i.e. the cultural object is open for recreation and in turn makes the consumer the creator (e.g. several different audio sources can be merged and altered by the consumer to create a new audio). However Poster also details how there are numerous elements in place to restrict such creation of the consumer and there is a desire to create a ‘pay per use’ digital culture.
Poster concludes the article with suggesting how consumers are expressing resistance to consumer capitalism. With the cultural object as digitised it is possible for the consumer to ignore it via different means. E.g. adverts on TV can be avoided by changing channels or muting the sound. Additionally the development of digital TV recorders enables the user to select automatic elimination of commercials. Thus there are options available in contemporary society to avoid the bombardment of the consumer culture. However Poster suggests that capitalism always has alternative techniques to ‘sustain the market culture’. What do you think....?
Discussion points:
*In contemporary society, can an individual be economically/politically/socially successful without being an active consumer?
*Are consumers merely passive dupes or active agents?
*Consumption is closely linked to femininity as females are placed on the passive side of the passive/active binary. What are your views upon such a connection?
*Do you agree that the consumer becomes creator in the digitized world or are there too many prevention mechanisms in place?
*Is it possible to ever be completely free from the pressures of consumer society or is society too heavily laden with images/texts of consumption?
Hello bloggers! Below is my presentation for this week, any problems/misunderstandings just let me know? If not, happy blogging and I look forward to reading your comments xx
Poster begins by detailing the inescapability from perpetual advertising and the pressures to consume, within contemporary society. He is evidently not in favour of the omnipotent presence of consumption. According to Poster advertising (as the vehicle of consumption) infiltrates into our homes, our work environment, in fact every aspect of our lives. It can be identified that consumption blurs the boundaries between public and private spheres which is an indication of its strength and importance within present society.
Continuing with the theme of binaries, Poster discusses how there has been a division between the consumption/production binary which highlights a ‘unique type of human action’ created by consumption. Different people consume in varying ways and all consumption patterns are subject to change over time thus Poster argues that if one was to identify common features within consumption then it would be possible to label such a practice as a cultural construct with set patterns. This would then possibly refute the notion of individualism which is closely linked in with consumption.
There is discussion upon postmodern consumption patterns and according to Poster the onus is on ‘multiplicity’. Modern consumption was laden with fixed ideas whereas postmodern consumption allows for diversity and change. Poster argues that consumer culture no longer trickles down from the upper echelons of society but in fact climbs up from the lower classes. However a contradiction to this argument is the notion of celebrities setting trends and encouraging consumption. Wealthy celebrities continue to influence the lower classes in society who in turn often strive to imitate them; thus I am not entirely convinced that there is now a climbing up as opposed to a trickling down within consumer culture. An additional disparity between modern and postmodern consumption is that within the former products represented status whereas in the latter period products express one’s identity. Consumption is thus part of self-construction. For more details upon consumerism within postmodernity and liquidity in terms of identity see Zygmunt Bauman.
The final subheading within the article is titled ‘Digital Media and Consumption’. According to Poster digital media transforms both the cultural object and the subject position of the consumer i.e. the cultural object is open for recreation and in turn makes the consumer the creator (e.g. several different audio sources can be merged and altered by the consumer to create a new audio). However Poster also details how there are numerous elements in place to restrict such creation of the consumer and there is a desire to create a ‘pay per use’ digital culture.
Poster concludes the article with suggesting how consumers are expressing resistance to consumer capitalism. With the cultural object as digitised it is possible for the consumer to ignore it via different means. E.g. adverts on TV can be avoided by changing channels or muting the sound. Additionally the development of digital TV recorders enables the user to select automatic elimination of commercials. Thus there are options available in contemporary society to avoid the bombardment of the consumer culture. However Poster suggests that capitalism always has alternative techniques to ‘sustain the market culture’. What do you think....?
Discussion points:
*In contemporary society, can an individual be economically/politically/socially successful without being an active consumer?
*Are consumers merely passive dupes or active agents?
*Consumption is closely linked to femininity as females are placed on the passive side of the passive/active binary. What are your views upon such a connection?
*Do you agree that the consumer becomes creator in the digitized world or are there too many prevention mechanisms in place?
*Is it possible to ever be completely free from the pressures of consumer society or is society too heavily laden with images/texts of consumption?
Monday, September 22, 2008
Tutorial Presentation - The Good, the Bad and the Ugly by Mark Poster
Internet ethics is obviously a very debatable and controversial topic - and is something which is explored in Mark Poster's essay on 'the good, the bad and the ugly' of the virtual space. Our everyday life is constructed in accordance to rules and boundaries, set out to protect and control what people in society can and cannot do. It is important to note, these laws are set out by the government and mostly enforced through the local police.
However, when we move to the virtual space, boundaries and control is all but set free - enabling the entire world's population to interact and communicate with each other. While this "freedom" is often seen as empowering and Utopian like, it also raises some questions of what is 'ethical' and 'morally right' when taking part in the virtual world. There are no police (the governments can control some webspace (ie. China) but for now the internet is at large unregulated), there are no physical boundaries, and people now have an anonymous identity where everyone can talk as equals disregarding age, gender, race and class. These critical aspects of cyberspace is what makes it so unique - it is basically a world entirely separate from reality.
Poster's first discussion underlines the difference between cyberspace and reality, and the two different boundaries and norms. He asks: "...if new ethical rules are required for mediated culture, perhaps the earlier system of ethics was itself flawed..." I think this is a very interesting question, as it attempts to explore just how much of cyberspace can be compared to reality - and if the laws we have today are suitable and adequate enough. Poster also references Nietzsche's approach, in which Nietzsche defines ethics as a historical construction. He also points out the "standpoint of the group is crucial to the type of morality it will create." The 'group' refers to 'the noble' or people in power -in our case, we have governments which create the laws for society to abide by. This leads to my first question: Do you agree with Nietzche's approach, and why?
Poster next describes the pitfalls of the openness of the internet with things such as spamming and flaming. Censorship is also an important issue - including things such as religion and pornography(discussed in the other articles for this week). Censorship is continually pushed in cyberspace - for example one surgeon in the article decided to broadcast on the internet a live surgery of a sex change operation. There has also been other cases which have raised questions over the morals of broadcasting questionable content online. This is slightly on a tangent but I recently saw the movie 'Untraceable' which also has a strong theme of internet morality in it - in fact the whole plot is based on the immense power of the internet and the ability of the public to control what happens on it. People are naturally curious, and because of the openness of the internet(and the almighty Google), people can look up and research anything they want. Protection of young children and teenagers may also come into context here - Poster raises the question of the ethics of child pornography and the downloading of pornography online. This leads to my next question...
Has the public/private changed alongside the growing rise of new media? In fact, is anything private anymore?? Just thinking of sites like Facebook...once information is stored on a database its hard to get rid of. Furthermore there is the issue of the distribution of personal photos and such...
Anonymity is also a very interesting concept in relation to cyberspace. We talked about the case of ICERED a few weeks ago, and that touched on internet ethics and the abundance of extreme views and opinions online. I posted in the comments for one of the other presentations a while ago, but I think the most widely known anonymous forum today is 4chan.org - mainly because it is the source of a lot of controversy and internet fads (most arising from the /b/ board). They are often associated with hackers, and they call themselves 'Anonymous'. Most recently, there was the case of Sarah Palin's yahoo account being hacked by a forumer from that site. Not only did this question the right of privacy, the anonymity of the forum meant all the users could post whatever they wanted without being prosecuted. It also resulted in masses of users attempting to log in to the account, and screenshots being broadcasted of the inbox etc. Read more about it here (the comments section has an interesting discussion about internet ethics and anonymity too!!).
So from this example, anonymity online clearly changes the way people interact with each other, as well as the actions people take. I still remember a few months ago, there was the Youtube scandal of those 6 girls who beat up this other girl at a house in order to gain 'Youtube fame'. Arising from this, some people were posting phone numbers and myspace pages of the accused alongside Youtube videos - resulting in death threats and mass calls from all over the world. Some say the internet "promotes irresponsibility", while others think freedom of speech - no matter what the opinion - is a human right. Of course some of society's culture can transfer on into cyberspace - "netiquette" is a term used to describe how one should behave when online. Anonymity is clearly an important factor when looking at morals online though - the freedoms the internet gives everyone allows people to express their true feelings and thoughts without much consequence. There are pitfalls from this utopian ideal of free speech though - of course not everyone will agree with everything that is suggested online. So from this, I ask:
Has the anonymity on the internet altered your identity online at all (eg. on forums, in online games, commenting on a blog etc.)? Have you taken advantage of anonymity online, and have you been able to express yourself more through the medium?
Identity is further discussed in Poster's essay, with our real life identity compared to the online one. In conclusion, Poster urges us to think about Nietzsche's approach of the good and the bad of the virtual world. With cultural transformation, ethics may also evolve to suit cyberspace - especially through the aspiration for an enhancement of life. Politics are now very much involved with the ethics online - especially since the internet has cut all bounfaries between people of different cultures and countries. It seems politics will continue to be strongly linked to the ethics of cyberspace - linking not just individuals, but communities together in terms of power. This leads to my final question:
Do you think the internet should be regulated, and why?
However, when we move to the virtual space, boundaries and control is all but set free - enabling the entire world's population to interact and communicate with each other. While this "freedom" is often seen as empowering and Utopian like, it also raises some questions of what is 'ethical' and 'morally right' when taking part in the virtual world. There are no police (the governments can control some webspace (ie. China) but for now the internet is at large unregulated), there are no physical boundaries, and people now have an anonymous identity where everyone can talk as equals disregarding age, gender, race and class. These critical aspects of cyberspace is what makes it so unique - it is basically a world entirely separate from reality.
Poster's first discussion underlines the difference between cyberspace and reality, and the two different boundaries and norms. He asks: "...if new ethical rules are required for mediated culture, perhaps the earlier system of ethics was itself flawed..." I think this is a very interesting question, as it attempts to explore just how much of cyberspace can be compared to reality - and if the laws we have today are suitable and adequate enough. Poster also references Nietzsche's approach, in which Nietzsche defines ethics as a historical construction. He also points out the "standpoint of the group is crucial to the type of morality it will create." The 'group' refers to 'the noble' or people in power -in our case, we have governments which create the laws for society to abide by. This leads to my first question: Do you agree with Nietzche's approach, and why?
Poster next describes the pitfalls of the openness of the internet with things such as spamming and flaming. Censorship is also an important issue - including things such as religion and pornography(discussed in the other articles for this week). Censorship is continually pushed in cyberspace - for example one surgeon in the article decided to broadcast on the internet a live surgery of a sex change operation. There has also been other cases which have raised questions over the morals of broadcasting questionable content online. This is slightly on a tangent but I recently saw the movie 'Untraceable' which also has a strong theme of internet morality in it - in fact the whole plot is based on the immense power of the internet and the ability of the public to control what happens on it. People are naturally curious, and because of the openness of the internet(and the almighty Google), people can look up and research anything they want. Protection of young children and teenagers may also come into context here - Poster raises the question of the ethics of child pornography and the downloading of pornography online. This leads to my next question...
Has the public/private changed alongside the growing rise of new media? In fact, is anything private anymore?? Just thinking of sites like Facebook...once information is stored on a database its hard to get rid of. Furthermore there is the issue of the distribution of personal photos and such...
Anonymity is also a very interesting concept in relation to cyberspace. We talked about the case of ICERED a few weeks ago, and that touched on internet ethics and the abundance of extreme views and opinions online. I posted in the comments for one of the other presentations a while ago, but I think the most widely known anonymous forum today is 4chan.org - mainly because it is the source of a lot of controversy and internet fads (most arising from the /b/ board). They are often associated with hackers, and they call themselves 'Anonymous'. Most recently, there was the case of Sarah Palin's yahoo account being hacked by a forumer from that site. Not only did this question the right of privacy, the anonymity of the forum meant all the users could post whatever they wanted without being prosecuted. It also resulted in masses of users attempting to log in to the account, and screenshots being broadcasted of the inbox etc. Read more about it here (the comments section has an interesting discussion about internet ethics and anonymity too!!).
So from this example, anonymity online clearly changes the way people interact with each other, as well as the actions people take. I still remember a few months ago, there was the Youtube scandal of those 6 girls who beat up this other girl at a house in order to gain 'Youtube fame'. Arising from this, some people were posting phone numbers and myspace pages of the accused alongside Youtube videos - resulting in death threats and mass calls from all over the world. Some say the internet "promotes irresponsibility", while others think freedom of speech - no matter what the opinion - is a human right. Of course some of society's culture can transfer on into cyberspace - "netiquette" is a term used to describe how one should behave when online. Anonymity is clearly an important factor when looking at morals online though - the freedoms the internet gives everyone allows people to express their true feelings and thoughts without much consequence. There are pitfalls from this utopian ideal of free speech though - of course not everyone will agree with everything that is suggested online. So from this, I ask:
Has the anonymity on the internet altered your identity online at all (eg. on forums, in online games, commenting on a blog etc.)? Have you taken advantage of anonymity online, and have you been able to express yourself more through the medium?
Identity is further discussed in Poster's essay, with our real life identity compared to the online one. In conclusion, Poster urges us to think about Nietzsche's approach of the good and the bad of the virtual world. With cultural transformation, ethics may also evolve to suit cyberspace - especially through the aspiration for an enhancement of life. Politics are now very much involved with the ethics online - especially since the internet has cut all bounfaries between people of different cultures and countries. It seems politics will continue to be strongly linked to the ethics of cyberspace - linking not just individuals, but communities together in terms of power. This leads to my final question:
Do you think the internet should be regulated, and why?
Sunday, September 21, 2008
Week 8 Tutorial Presentation
The article “Diary of a Webdiarist: Ethics goes online”, written by Margo Kingston, explores the issue concerning the ethics of online journalism. This is discussed in terms of how online ethics are applied, who is responsible for maintaining these ethics and some of the problems that can arise in the area of online journalism and how these problems are overcome from the experience of the journalist Margo Kingston. The article is divided into four main parts each examining a different area of online ethics. These four parts include a general overview of online ethics followed by three sections entitled Nom De Plumes, Offensive Material, Conflicts of Interest and Plagiarism and Corrections.
The article begins with a discussion of the interaction that the internet makes possible between journalists and readers. In the case of Kingston she’s sees this interaction as “a big plus for readers” (p. 160). Kingston acknowledges that with this interaction that she is able to enjoy with her readers via email came a set of new responsibilities when she decided to publish these emails. Kingston had total control over what appeared on her Webdiary and with that she realised she was the one who would be held accountable for any problems that may have been encountered. Thus Kingston encountered the concept of online ethics when she was forced to transform her “ethical considerations” (p. 160) in accordance with online journalism. I found in this article that online ethics are a largely ambiguous concept in that they appear to be wholly at the discretion of the author.
This brought up the relationship between ethics, power and trust. Kingston desired to create a space in which there would be mutual trust between herself and her readers. Moreso she did not want a space in which her readers found themselves to be powerless. The issue of power seems to be one of the key problem areas in the journalist reader relationship. To this end Kingston published those emails that were critical of herself, her style and her substance. As these responses as well as complaints were published it meant that Kingston’s online ethics were able to evolve “in consultation with readers” (p. 164). It was through Kingston’s interaction with readers that forced her to both clarify and justify her ethical stance when it came to journalism, especially when it was conducted online.
Writing under nom de plumes is the next issue Kingston considers. Unlike newspapers Kingston is willing to publish comments that are made anonymously, written under nom de plumes, as long as they do not consist of personal slurs or serious allegations. She does however ask that those publishing comments under a nom de plume give reasons as to why they are doing so. This stance by Kingston, in terms of people justifying writing under a nom de plume, came about due to criticism of her publishing anonymous comments.
The next two sections covered are offensive material and conflicts of interest respectively. Kingston takes a relaxed stance when it comes to offensive material stating that “it is a deliberate choice to log on” (p. 167). The article highlights that everyone will have different opinions on what constitutes an offensive comment and it is largely impossible to please everyone with what you write. Some will find fault in what you say and others will find reasons for praise. Racism is the key offensive issue with which Kingston tackles. Her position is that issues surrounding race are a means of people with opposing views to come together.
The matter of conflicts of interest is dealt with briefly by Kingston in an extract from her Webdiary. This issue links back with the matter of trust that was pointed out earlier in the article. This topic involves a trust that people who comment on Webdiary disclose information that could have led to them holding their particular opinion, for example any bias or prejudice that the reader may have held.
The last issue discussed is plagiarism and corrections. The issue of plagiarism is one to which the internet is particularly prone. This is both with people publishing false information and people making false allegations from what they read online. Kingston emphasises the fact that she and she alone has the responsibility for making sure that her work is accurate. Overall this accountability on the part of Kingston has led to a positive response on the part of the public.
Questions to think over:
Do you agree that ethics and trust amount to the same thing?
What are your opinions of comments posted anonymously online? Does a name attached make a comment more or less credible?
What are your feelings on online journalism?
The article begins with a discussion of the interaction that the internet makes possible between journalists and readers. In the case of Kingston she’s sees this interaction as “a big plus for readers” (p. 160). Kingston acknowledges that with this interaction that she is able to enjoy with her readers via email came a set of new responsibilities when she decided to publish these emails. Kingston had total control over what appeared on her Webdiary and with that she realised she was the one who would be held accountable for any problems that may have been encountered. Thus Kingston encountered the concept of online ethics when she was forced to transform her “ethical considerations” (p. 160) in accordance with online journalism. I found in this article that online ethics are a largely ambiguous concept in that they appear to be wholly at the discretion of the author.
This brought up the relationship between ethics, power and trust. Kingston desired to create a space in which there would be mutual trust between herself and her readers. Moreso she did not want a space in which her readers found themselves to be powerless. The issue of power seems to be one of the key problem areas in the journalist reader relationship. To this end Kingston published those emails that were critical of herself, her style and her substance. As these responses as well as complaints were published it meant that Kingston’s online ethics were able to evolve “in consultation with readers” (p. 164). It was through Kingston’s interaction with readers that forced her to both clarify and justify her ethical stance when it came to journalism, especially when it was conducted online.
Writing under nom de plumes is the next issue Kingston considers. Unlike newspapers Kingston is willing to publish comments that are made anonymously, written under nom de plumes, as long as they do not consist of personal slurs or serious allegations. She does however ask that those publishing comments under a nom de plume give reasons as to why they are doing so. This stance by Kingston, in terms of people justifying writing under a nom de plume, came about due to criticism of her publishing anonymous comments.
The next two sections covered are offensive material and conflicts of interest respectively. Kingston takes a relaxed stance when it comes to offensive material stating that “it is a deliberate choice to log on” (p. 167). The article highlights that everyone will have different opinions on what constitutes an offensive comment and it is largely impossible to please everyone with what you write. Some will find fault in what you say and others will find reasons for praise. Racism is the key offensive issue with which Kingston tackles. Her position is that issues surrounding race are a means of people with opposing views to come together.
The matter of conflicts of interest is dealt with briefly by Kingston in an extract from her Webdiary. This issue links back with the matter of trust that was pointed out earlier in the article. This topic involves a trust that people who comment on Webdiary disclose information that could have led to them holding their particular opinion, for example any bias or prejudice that the reader may have held.
The last issue discussed is plagiarism and corrections. The issue of plagiarism is one to which the internet is particularly prone. This is both with people publishing false information and people making false allegations from what they read online. Kingston emphasises the fact that she and she alone has the responsibility for making sure that her work is accurate. Overall this accountability on the part of Kingston has led to a positive response on the part of the public.
Questions to think over:
Do you agree that ethics and trust amount to the same thing?
What are your opinions of comments posted anonymously online? Does a name attached make a comment more or less credible?
What are your feelings on online journalism?
week 8 presentation
Week 8 - The Ethics of Porn of the Net
This is an interesting article that questions pornography on the internet. Kath Albury undertook research in the field of, “representations of heterosexuality in media and popular culture”. She raises several questions regarding moral and ethically standards in the pornographic world of the internet.
The article begins with Albury asking the underlying question of the article, ‘What is wrong with pornography?’ In answering this question, Albury makes it clear that one must look to the question of morality between the different sectors of society. Firstly she makes reference to Judeo-Christian’s who share a rather conservative view regarding pornography. They strongly believe that sex is something private between married couples, and should be kept in the bedroom. They believe that pornography encourages immoral sex and is therefore immoral. She then presents the Marxist view, which is somewhat similar to a radical feminist view. Essentially the Marxist view is one which believes that ‘porn performers’ are alienated from experiencing their own sexuality since their job is the performance of sex therefore making it labour rather than something which should be for recreation or procreation. Albury then goes on to discuss the feminist approach to pornography making it clear that the vast majority of feminists (largely radical) believe that pornography promotes the exploitation of women. She goes on to say that pornography encourages a sexualised view of women by men (the prime group who access porn) and makes women appear as more of a commodity therefore allowing them to be objectified.
Albury then goes on to discuss that while porn on the internet may be considered immoral and perhaps even unethical, it does allow for certain sub-sections of society to express themselves. In terms of mainstream pornography it is clear that they favour a rather unrealistic beauty, i.e. women with ‘silicone implants, taut aerobicised loins, fake tan, false nails, big hair and Brazilian waxes’, when the reality is that this ideal is far from the natural attributes of everyday women. Through pornography, largely via the influx of amateur pornography producers, women and men are able to move away from perceived norms and express themselves for their own unique sexual beauty. Albury makes reference to several websites that encourage a different view of the sexualised woman and man, for example the ‘hair to stay’ website, which encourages women to embrace their natural beauty including their bodily hair.
She concludes the article by questioning whether pornography on the internet is unethical. Essentially it is up to the individual person based on their own beliefs and opinions to decide whether porn on the internet is unethical. This is an interesting article that calls into question a rather controversial issue. Personally I am unsure where I stand regarding this topic. I do agree with the feminist approach presented in terms of the sexualisation of women and how mainstream pornography largely promotes a rather unrealistic woman, therefore often sending out the wrong message. However I am a supporter of freedom of expression, so provided the pornography does not overstep the law it is up the individual to do as they please.
This is an interesting topic and I am excited to hear your opinions. Some questions to consider would be firstly what is your opinion of pornography on the internet? Do you believe it to be immoral or rather as an opportunity for people to express themselves via another form on the internet? Also perhaps it would be interesting to look at your personal beliefs regarding the moral and ethical arguments that surround the issue.
I look forward to hearing your responses.
This is an interesting article that questions pornography on the internet. Kath Albury undertook research in the field of, “representations of heterosexuality in media and popular culture”. She raises several questions regarding moral and ethically standards in the pornographic world of the internet.
The article begins with Albury asking the underlying question of the article, ‘What is wrong with pornography?’ In answering this question, Albury makes it clear that one must look to the question of morality between the different sectors of society. Firstly she makes reference to Judeo-Christian’s who share a rather conservative view regarding pornography. They strongly believe that sex is something private between married couples, and should be kept in the bedroom. They believe that pornography encourages immoral sex and is therefore immoral. She then presents the Marxist view, which is somewhat similar to a radical feminist view. Essentially the Marxist view is one which believes that ‘porn performers’ are alienated from experiencing their own sexuality since their job is the performance of sex therefore making it labour rather than something which should be for recreation or procreation. Albury then goes on to discuss the feminist approach to pornography making it clear that the vast majority of feminists (largely radical) believe that pornography promotes the exploitation of women. She goes on to say that pornography encourages a sexualised view of women by men (the prime group who access porn) and makes women appear as more of a commodity therefore allowing them to be objectified.
Albury then goes on to discuss that while porn on the internet may be considered immoral and perhaps even unethical, it does allow for certain sub-sections of society to express themselves. In terms of mainstream pornography it is clear that they favour a rather unrealistic beauty, i.e. women with ‘silicone implants, taut aerobicised loins, fake tan, false nails, big hair and Brazilian waxes’, when the reality is that this ideal is far from the natural attributes of everyday women. Through pornography, largely via the influx of amateur pornography producers, women and men are able to move away from perceived norms and express themselves for their own unique sexual beauty. Albury makes reference to several websites that encourage a different view of the sexualised woman and man, for example the ‘hair to stay’ website, which encourages women to embrace their natural beauty including their bodily hair.
She concludes the article by questioning whether pornography on the internet is unethical. Essentially it is up to the individual person based on their own beliefs and opinions to decide whether porn on the internet is unethical. This is an interesting article that calls into question a rather controversial issue. Personally I am unsure where I stand regarding this topic. I do agree with the feminist approach presented in terms of the sexualisation of women and how mainstream pornography largely promotes a rather unrealistic woman, therefore often sending out the wrong message. However I am a supporter of freedom of expression, so provided the pornography does not overstep the law it is up the individual to do as they please.
This is an interesting topic and I am excited to hear your opinions. Some questions to consider would be firstly what is your opinion of pornography on the internet? Do you believe it to be immoral or rather as an opportunity for people to express themselves via another form on the internet? Also perhaps it would be interesting to look at your personal beliefs regarding the moral and ethical arguments that surround the issue.
I look forward to hearing your responses.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)